The man who signed a document stating that the Bush administration actually brought down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 actually then argued that the United States actually DESERVED the attack – as Newsbusters was able to document:

The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City,” said Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Newsbusters‘ Tom Blumer points out, “Keep in mind that Jones had to be referring to either the first Gulf War or no-fly-zone incidents, as the war to remove Saddam Hussein did not begin until 2003.” This is a naked statement of “America deserved it!” from a lunatic. And this anti-American lunatic was given a great deal of power by one Barack Obama.

“We are so delighted about being able to recruit him [Van Jones] into the White House. We have been watching him – really – for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland.”

So they knew Van Jones was a self-admitted communist, knew he was a racist who accused white people (and even white environmentalists) of poisoning people of color, knew he was a supporter of cop-murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, etc. etc. And they just didn’t care. That was what they wanted. That is who they are.

The resignation of Obama administration figure Van Jones, following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans, did not come at the request of the president, the White House senior adviser said Sunday

After all, he was who and what they wanted. He’s like Obama. He’s like the mainstream liberals who are running America now.

Liberal ideologue and Democrat in good standing John Podesta had this bit to say:

Van was working to build a common ground agenda for all Americans, and I am confident he will continue that work. Unfortunately, his critics on the right could find no common ground with him.

Clearly, Van was the subject of a right-wing smear campaign shrouded in hypocrisy.

I think that Van Jones calling Republicans “assholes” literally just for being Republicans kind of exposes the sheer insanity of Podesta’s rhetoric. Or maybe he’s arguing that all Republicans should just quietly lie down and reflect upon their “assholishness.” And that’s our “common ground agenda for all Americans.”

So the fact that I am opposed to Marxist-Leninist communism, the fact that I don’t believe Bush bombed the World Trade Center on 9/11, the fact that I don’t blame America for causing 9/11, the fact that I refuse to bear the label of “murderer” for my “environmental crimes” against people of color, the fact that I support Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner over and against the man who murdered him, puts me on the other side of the “common agenda” that liberals want to create.

And of course, if I oppose Van Jones, and John Podesta, and Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Obama on their agenda, why, I’m just “shrouded in hypocrisy.”

That must be some godawful “common ground agenda.” Or, allow me to quote Obama’s preacher for 23 years, Jeremiah Wright, and call it a “God damned” agenda.

I just want you to realize the radical, communist, hateful, anti-American lengths Republicans are now expected to go to if they want to “build a common ground agenda for all Americans.”

Now that Van Jones is finally gone, I’ve heard that his role as “green jobs czar” was in reality a “fairly minor position.” Which is actually a bizarre claim, given that Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs – and Van Jones was his point man for that endeavor. Is it seriously the liberals’ argument that 5 million green jobs is “fairly minor”?

Van Jones is going to just quietly go away because the media is a biased and ideologically liberal group of propagandists, and they don’t want this story to fester (just imagine how the mainstream media would have gone after a rightwing “czar” who had had a tenth of Jones’ ideological baggage.) But some questions demand to be asked:

Van Jones never created a job in his life. What qualified him to be the green jobs czar? What in the world is going on with this green jobs program if Van Jones is their guy? What kind of ideology must Barack Obama have if he welcomed Van Jones aboard and was willing to stick by him in spite of Jones’ documented far leftist radicalism? Why shouldn’t conservatives and Republicans oppose everything Obama stands for and tries to implement if he is a “Van Jones-type” of politician? How dare a man who claimed that he transcended partisan politics appoint such a loathsome ideologue to any post in his administration? And so on.

The fact of the matter is that the modern Democrat Party continues to be the party of Van Jones. And that is truly frightening.

William Ayers didn’t make that horrible statement when Barack Obama was 8 years old (FYI, Ayers’ last self-acknowledged and most well-known bombings occurred in 1972, when Barack Obama was eleven years old). Ayers said that when Barack Obama was 40 years old. Nor did Obama work in direct partnership with William Ayers when he was 8 years old; he did so beginning when he was 32 years old. In other words, he was old enough to be held responsible for his relationships and alliances.

[John] Murtagh, whose father was a New York Supreme Court justice when his family’s home was targeted, put out a statement on behalf of McCain’s campaign Wednesday claiming “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family.”

Obama has said his relationship with Ayers did not extend beyond serving with him on an education board in Chicago. He has condemned Ayers’ Vietnam War-era attacks, and his campaign has said Obama did not know of Ayers’ radical past when Ayers held a campaign event at his home for Obama in 1995.

But Murtagh cast doubt on the narrative out of the Obama campaign, saying it would make the Democratic presidential candidate “the dumbest man that ever graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School” if he didn’t initially know about Ayers’ past.

Barack Obama said he didn’t know about William Ayers’ radical terrorist past when he held his first campaign fund raiser in William Ayers’ home – and directly benefited from Ayers’ clout – in 1995. But Obama had already known and worked with Ayers for a couple of years (beginning in early 1993), and Ayers’ Weatherman terrorist background was common knowledge in Chicago. It is very much like someone in New York serving on a couple of boards with Joe Namath and claiming that he was never told that Namath had been a football player.

The article quoted above also notes that Michelle Obama worked with William Ayers’ wife – and convicted terrorist – Bernadine Dohrn. Murtagh says, “I believe if the senator were to come clean and tell us the full story, we’d find out this relationship well predates the fundraiser held in the Ayers home. It goes back to the ’80s.”

William Ayers wasn’t some irrelevant and tangential acquaintance; he was a powerful and influential supporter of Barack Obama at an early and critical stage in an inexperienced Barack Obama’s career.

To begin with, the William Ayers relationship – and Barack Obama’s attempts to distance himself from that relationship – reveal the cynical and deceptive personal character of Barack Obama. The only thing worse than having a bad association is having a bad association and then regularly lying about it. Obama has lied about his relationship with William Ayers.

But, believe it or not, that’s not the worst of it. That Barack Obama has “palled around with terrorists” is only part of the problem. [For the record, there have been a lot of virulently anti-American friends in Barack Obama’s Rolodex.]

You need to realize just what Barack Obama did while serving on those two boards with William Ayers. It isn’t pretty.

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

Let me begin by asking the following question: would it bother you if I – as a white scholar – asserted that white brains were different than black brains, and that black children are incapable of learning the same way white children do? That is precisely the position of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 23 years.

Now let me point out as a further preamble that William Ayers – in a book timed to be released after the election in order to keep Obama out of trouble yet benefit from the publicity surrounding the Obama-Ayers link – will be titled Race Course Against White Supremacy. Ayers used to be a radical bomb-throwing terrorist. Newsflash: since then he’s been a radical bomb-throwing educator. It’s too bad that this book will come out too late for voters to understand the incredibly radical agenda that William Ayers – and Barack H. Obama – have regarding education. The fact is, Obama didn’t just “pal around” with Bill Ayers; he partnered with Ayers to advance and fund an incredibly radical education agenda.

In 1996, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge gave the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore (CIESS) a $200,000 grant. CIESS was made an “enternal partner” linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” was thoroughly “Afrocentric” in orientation. It continued to receive large grants from Annenburg throughout the period of Barack Obama’s oversight as a board member.

Stanley Kurtz documents the relationship between Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and what turns out to be an extremely troubling “Afrocentric” curriculum advanced and supported by Ayers and Obama and which Kurtz describes as a “carbon copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview.”

The Afrocentric “rites of passage” movement begins with the presupposition (in the words of the Journal of Negro Education) that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.” Is that your view of American public education, PTA mom and dad? It is Barack Obama’s, given his support for and funding of the movement.

According to the Afrocentric system championed by William Ayers and Barack Obama with Annenberg money, American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfunctional and genocidal to the African American community.” And the “answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed ‘to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.'”

Supporters of the “rites of passage” movement (such as Barack Obama and William Ayers in their decision to fund them) viewed these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

Jacob Carruthers, a leader of the “rites of passage” movement funded by Annenberg money under Barack Obama, “dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.” His mission, as detailed in his book Intellectual Warfare, calls upon society to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.” According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”

As Stanley Kurtz explains:

Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: “…some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.” The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist….” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Kurtz also says:

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey….” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

You might have noticed that the three R’s don’t seem to be very important. They aren’t, for this Obama-funded racist and anti-American ideology masquerading as a curriculum. It is a curriculum Barack Obama, as a friend of William Ayers, a board member with Annenberg, and a congregant for 23 years in Jeremiah Wright’s church, has supported for most of his entire adult life. In his conclusion, Kurtz says:

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.

Barack Obama has promised to increase the funding of our nation’s already massively funded public education system by about another thirty percent. Just realize that – based on his past history – President Obama will use that money to radicalize your little darlings, rather than try to teach them.